The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1887-06-01

construction, Dc ucuuCeu from Lnc SecLlOn OF
the Constitution referred to.
It will readily occur to the mind that this
unlimited power on the part OF married wo-
men to make contracts may hav" led to seri-
Gus evils growing out of Il woman s affections
for her husband, or others. and her want OF
business training, now so much neglected In
their education and modes of life. II was not
an uncommon thing for 81 Judgment To be
rendered on such contracts, and for the pay
ment of which not only her property, then In
possession, but NIL future acquisitions by in
heritance or otherwise were liable. II was
when the law had been just construed so as to
lead to these consequences, that the amend.
ment or 1882 was passed. 1t Is my view Of the
purpose of the legislature, that 1t was intend
ed and that the amendment bears no other
construction than thata married woman was
By II confined in making contracts to those
which We're "as to" or "in regard to- or "in re-
spect to- her separate property, and Of which
Ia some way the separate property was The sub
ject matter. There has as yet been no decision
Of the Supreme Court as to whether mar
ried woman can be held personally and gen.
orally liable even on such Il contract. All
that is decided in Hubentch us. R0,Cls t. vi.
shuT, "a S. c. 4Gl, Is that II married woman cam
not since the amendment of 1882 be held lin-
BILE as endorser for her husband on con-
tract, which had no reference to her separate
property.
In UTte rs. Wolfe. supra, the Supreme Court
held that Mrs Wolfe, married woman had n
right under the Constitution and Act OF $50
To mortgage her separate property to pay IL
debt of her husband, and as authority for the
conclusion SAYS that by the Act OF 1870, "all
"deeds mortgages and legal instruments OF
"eyery kind Shall be executed by her In the
"Sanle manner and have the same legal force
"and effect rs If she were nnmhrried.' The
Court does not anywhere base the right To
mortgage on the right to make contracts
The DoWer of alienation given To Il married
woman in the Constitution Is not II mere
naked power, and seems TO me to be merely
one of the incidents OF her estate IN hrr S"p"-
rate nyoperfY and If she is limited by that
word to a conveyance in fec il would be in
consistent with the estate which the tOnStitu-
lion vests in her However this may be the
word cOnvey is substituted i'm the Act Sec. :.
for the word alternate used IN the tonS'ltu-
tion, and not only so but the ACT uses me
words, "to the same extent us Qualifying llir
must mean either to convey the wholc eStatG
or some less interest I'm the property, ana
soc no reason why under This section Il mar
ried woman may not convey on condition,
and such condition as Is contained in the
MORTGAGE Stewart OH husband ana wife, Sec
2,l5 Q note 2l Whatever may he the true
ground on which the dcciS ion I'm UWc rs.
Wolfe is based, that case settles the question,
ms To the power of IL married woman to mort
rnue her separate property. prior to the
In the General Statutes of lSS2.
She did then have such power to MORTGAGE aS
socurity for her husband, and If for him. take
Il for any other person.
The amended section Is subsequent to the
one which refers TO the power to convey, and
the execution OF mortgages. ana II inconSiS-i !
tent with, may modify or even repeal IL.
In the view take of 1t, these sections refer j
to different subjects, and have no necessary